Saturday, August 31, 2013

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their
unrighteousness – Romans 1:18 (NET)

Immediately after speaking of what
he understood to be the mysterious and inherent power of the Gospel (the
proclamation that Jesus is Lord of all), the Apostle Paul launches into a
statement concerning the pouring out of the wrath of the Creator God, and the
connection of the pouring out of that wrath to ungodliness and
unrighteousness. Following that lead-in, the remainder of the first
chapter of the letter to the Romans is decidedly direct, as Paul, in his
writing here, would seem to have in mind certain individuals or groups of
people to which his words are directed. Rather than analyze in an attempt
to ascertain to whom or to what situation the words from verse eighteen through
thirty-two are directed, it would probably be better to take into consideration
the grand narrative of the Scriptures so as to make an appropriate application.

So in looking at the eighteenth
verse, and contemplating the scope of the Scriptural narrative, one could
identify the verse with the presumptive parents of the human race, that being
Adam and Eve. Because human beings were made in and as the image of the
Creator God, it should be understood that an aspect of godliness is rightly bearing
the divine image. Accordingly, ungodliness could be considered to be the
failure to adequately and properly bear the divine image.

Righteousness is perhaps best defined as “covenant
faithfulness” (faithfulness to the covenant, whatever that covenant may be
during the course of the Scriptural narrative), and that particular trait is
usually and accurately ascribed to the Creator God, though when humans find themselves
attaining to righteousness, it can also be said that they are in a state of
faithfulness to the particular covenant that is to govern their interactions
with their Creator and their fellow man.

Unrighteousness then, conversely, is a state of not being
faithful to the covenant (covenant unfaithfulness). When Adam and Eve
partook of the “forbidden fruit,” in contradiction of their Lord’s command,
they were not faithful to the covenant under which they were tasked to operate.
Consequently, they found themselves in a state of unrighteousness. This
resulted in them not being able to completely fulfill the Creator God’s
intention for what was understood to be the pinnacle of His creation that bore
His image, and was responsible to play the role of reflecting His glory into
the world, stewarding the creation, and constantly reminding the creation of
the God that was responsible for its existence.

According to the Genesis narrative, Adam and Eve, having
eaten the fruit, now found themselves unable to attain to the reflection of their
God’s glory for which they had been created.Thus, entering into a condition of unrighteousness, they also succumbed
to the condition of ungodliness and they fell short of the glory of God. This
is marked out as the beginning of sin. With this, the indication is that mankind
began to lose its right knowledge of the Creator God; and with this presence of
the force of sin that marred and distorted the divine image that was supposed
to represent and reveal the Creator, one could say, the truth of the Creator God
began to be suppressed.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Believers are called to, at the least (if they have not personally
experienced suffering and shame), empathize and sympathize with those that are suffering,
making the cares and concerns (troubles and suffering) of the fatherless and
the widows (and those in prison or in need of clothing or a cup of water) their
own cares and concerns. Believers are to enter into this suffering and
know that it is worthwhile, and know that their work will remain, precisely
because they serve the one hailed as the risen King who endured suffering and
gross humiliation, overcame it in every respect, has conquered the world, and
is ruling it even now, even though this often would not appear to be the
case. Does this view of suffering and conquering not seem to be more in
line with the Spirit of the Word?

With this said, how should one
approach this issue of the world rejoicing? Is it negative or
positive? Does the world rejoice because
Jesus has been removed and “the world” (when viewed through the lens of “the
church versus the world”) can now go on its merry way in defiance of the
Creator, or is it something altogether different? Perhaps it is
worthwhile to see it in the positive light of the Creator God’s intentions for
His once-good-though-fallen-creation?

The Apostle Paul, based on His understanding of the
Christ-event and its implications (perhaps relying on the oral version of the
Gospel accounts, but certainly offering his thoughts on the subject prior to
the written biographies of Jesus) writes in Romans about the creation (the
world) itself, having been subjected to futility through no fault of its own,
groaning and suffering under the bondage of decay, while awaiting its
liberation from the same (8:21-22).

When Jesus went away into death, His disciples were sad
because they did not expect a Resurrection.
As expressed in the narrative, nobody did. Somehow though, as
implied by Paul, the world (the creation) itself knew that with Jesus’ death, a
Resurrection was coming, and it rejoiced that its new day was about to
dawn. Yes, Jesus’ Resurrection marked the beginning of the covenant God’s
new creation, and the inauguration of the kingdom of heaven on earth. A
new world had begun. In this world Jesus reigned, having conquered the
power of death that had ruled the world since Adam, by making it possible for
those that lived with a trusting allegiance to Him as cosmic ruler, to overcome
any and all fear of death (or suffering and shame), grounded in the hope of
their own resurrection into the world that Jesus now inhabited---the world of
the coming together of heaven and earth.

To convey this, Jesus uses the
imagery of a woman giving birth, experiencing pain and distress because the
time has come for her to deliver (John 16:21). Is it not interesting that
Jesus, in speaking of His death and hoped-for Resurrection, in the expectation
that His Resurrection, if it happened, was going to mark the beginning of a new
age, resorts to speaking of the pain of childbirth that was said to have been
introduced into the world because of the fall, thus linking the climactic act
of world history with the veritable beginning of the story? The woman
giving birth groans and suffers, but when the “new human being has been born
into the world” (16:21b), she forgets her suffering and she rejoices.

Is this not what happened when Jesus came forth from the
tomb? Was not a new human being born into the world? Indeed, something
more than what is thought of as a human being was born into the world.
Affirming that thought, those who served as eyewitnesses of this exalted
individual struggled to find the words to adequately convey what they were
experiencing in their interactions with this one that came to be understood to
be the firstfruits of the new creation---a being now fully and truly
human---with a physical, resurrected body fully animated by the Spirit of the
Creator God, bearing the divine image as that God had intended for the being
that was intended to be the crowning glory of His creation.

I tell you the solemn truth, you will weep and wail, but the
world will rejoice; you will be sad, but your sadness will turn into joy. –
John 16:20 (NET)

These words from Jesus follow
statements like “But now I am going to the One Who sent Me” (16:5a), “it is to
your advantage that I am going away” (16:7b), and “In a little while you will
see Me no longer; again after a little while, you will see Me” (16:16).
Though the disciples did not understand what it was that Jesus was He referencing
with such statements (16:18b), believers have the benefit of hindsight and the
knowledge that Jesus was speaking of His what He was almost certain was His pending
crucifixion, along with what He hoped and prayed was His Resurrection.

To that end, Jesus goes on to say that “though you have
sorrow now… I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will
take your joy away from you” (16:22). In
the Gospel accounts, Jesus is presented as one who is fully reliant upon His
understanding of the promises of the one He called Father, as it related to His
understanding of the role and vocation of the messiah as set forth based upon
Israel’s prophetic history and long-running narrative as the covenant people of
the Creator God, that the suffering and death of the messiah was necessary (the
messiah, as king, represents the people and would experience a personal exile
and exodus on their behalf).

Based on the presentation of Jesus in those same Gospel, it
would seem that Jesus also hoped that the messiah, having suffered on behalf of
all of the covenant people (the Creator God’s chosen people from Abraham
through this day) and the whole of the creation, would be delivered from that
suffering and be somehow raised up from the dead.

Generally, when one reads about
the world rejoicing at Jesus going away, or going into death, there is an
almost natural tendency amongst those trained in the sometimes unhelpfully dualistic Christian
mindset of “us versus the world,” to think about the “wicked” and “evil”
sinners exalting in jubilation over the fact that the man that was pointing out
their sins and making them feel bad about themselves, was removed from their
presence, never to be heard from again. In doing this, there is another tendency
to point an unwarranted finger of judgment, especially as one considers that it
is said that it was while believers were yet sinners (outside of right covenant
standing and failing to rightly bear the divine image) that Jesus died for them
(Romans 5:8).

As one thinks in this way, he or she is naturally led to the
final verse of this chapter in John, where it is insisted that “In the world
you have trouble and suffering, but take courage---I have conquered the world”
(16:33b). Believers too often get themselves hung up on that which
applies to them---the trouble and suffering---thinking of this as the wicked
sinners of this world---the ones that rejoiced at Jesus being killed---as being
against them because of their trust in Jesus, somehow forgetting or not
realizing that the more important part of the statement is that Jesus has indeed
conquered the world.

In thinking along such lines, believers may also fail to
recognize that part of what they are called to do, if they are truly in a
believing union with the Christ, is to, by the mysterious motivation and
empowerment of the Spirit of the Creator God that is so heavily spoken of in
this chapter, enter into the trouble and suffering of the world, as did Jesus
(who certainly did not escape suffering and shame). This is to be done so
that they might, as the Apostle Paul says, rejoice in sufferings and fill up in
their physical bodies what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ (Colossians
1:24).

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

How did the people to whom Jesus addressed this statement respond?
It is reported that “The chief priests and the experts in the law heard it and
considered how they could assassinate Him, for they feared Him, because the
whole crowd was amazed by His teaching” (11:18). Not only was He calling
their role into question, Jesus was messing with their pocketbooks and their
livelihood, and doing this after making His “triumphal entry” (a parousia like
that which would have been enjoyed by a Caesar, while also being a re-enactment
of two Jerusalem entries previously recorded in the history of the covenant
people) in which He was hailed as the King of Israel and the bringer of the
Kingdom of God.

A bit later in Mark, Jesus can
be heard speaking about the Temple yet again. This time, his commentary
is offered immediately after He has witnessed a widow putting into the Temple
offering box “what she had to live on” (12:44b). Seeing as how those that
served the Temple should not have let this happen, but should have been providing
for this poor widow, Jesus laments what He has just seen. He comments on it, saying that she “has put
more into the offering box than all the others” (12:43b), and probably doing so
with a touch of sadness and anger.

Jesus’ response to what He has seen perplexed Jesus’
disciples, as they probably missed His larger point about the failure of those
that were supposed to be representing the Creator God, and perhaps thought to
themselves something like, “If everybody gave the same amount that this widow
gave, then we would not have this beautiful and glorious Temple with which to
worship our God.” They said to Jesus, “Teacher, look at these tremendous
stones and buildings!” (13:1b), as if to say, “We think you’re mistaken.”

Jesus surveys the tremendous stones and buildings in full
realization that the glory of God is not to be found in the Temple, but in
Himself, and with the knowledge of the Temple’s redundancy says, “Do you see
these great buildings? Not one stone will be left on another. All
will be torn down” (13:2). This, of course, was fulfilled when the Roman
army came and destroyed the Temple in 70AD, and it must be noted that His words
about the destruction of this Temple and its system follows hard on His
observation of the widow and her gift. With
the knowledge that Jesus closely connects the fall of the Temple with the
offering from the widow, any notion that Jesus praises the widow as a model of
giving must be put aside.

It can be confidently asserted that these words of Jesus
were circulated, and that they were understood as yet another affront against
the Temple and those who ruled over it. As has already been noted, they
had already begun to devise plans to assassinate Jesus, and things like this
would only serve to cement and accelerate those plans. Ultimately, their
assassination plot would take shape and be successful, as the Temple
authorities would be able to turn Jesus over to the Roman governor, presenting
Him as an instigator of rebellion and revolution and a self-proclaimed rival to
Caesar. Accordingly, they could have Him
assassinated through a state-sanctioned execution.

So what does all of this have to
do with Samson? How does this compare with the way in which Samson
died? When Samson died, He did so through laying down His life in a
seeming defeat, doing so to defeat those
that were his enemies. Jesus did the same. When Jesus went forward
to His death, so as to do battle with His enemies. Though He speaks against them, His true
enemies were not the Temple authorities, but the dark forces of evil that stood
behind those authorities.

In his final confrontation with his enemies, Samson,
standing in the temple and enduring mocking, pushed hard against the pillars
and collapsed the temple upon himself and on all that were inside. Jesus,
in confrontation with His enemies, also pushed hard against the pillars of the
Temple (the Temple authorities). In doing this, Jesus (while also
enduring the mocking crowds) metaphorically brought the Temple down upon
Himself, by prompting the men that were responsible for the Temple to push hard
against Him (though He was the true Temple), enabling Him to lay down His life
in the process, hoping that death would not the final word. In His death,
most assuredly, Jesus conquered a vast army of dark forces, and forever sealed
their defeat with His glorious return to life.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

As he “channels” and calls the prophet Jeremiah to the mind
of the people of Jerusalem, Jesus had a great deal to say about the Jerusalem
Temple. His activity in Jerusalem, as one would expect, was centered
around the Temple, though He did not treat it at all in the way which was
expected of the messiah. The messiah, more than likely, would have been
expected to honor the Temple.

However, when it came to the Temple of Jerusalem, Jesus did
and said some rather interesting things. The things He said and did were
not necessarily directed against the Temple itself, as it, though a symbol of something
much larger, was merely a building.
Rather, Jesus’ words were directed against the Temple authorities, who seemingly
wielded the presence of a building and what it was meant to represent and
contain, against the people of Israel, so as to preserve their own power and
position.

With that frame of mind created, one can look at one of the
stories recounted in the Gospel of Mark as fairly representative of that which can
be seen in both Matthew and Luke. In the
eleventh chapter of Mark it is said that “Jesus entered the Temple area and
began to drive out those who were selling and buying in the Temple
courts. He turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of
those selling doves, and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise
through the Temple courts” (11:15-16).

This disruption in business would have had an obvious impact
on the sellers, as they would be losing money by being unable to carry out
their trade for a period of time. In and of itself, such action is not a
critique of the activity of buying and selling (though one could question the
legitimacy and necessity of the way in which the sacrificial cult was in
operation in that day) but of the greed and corruption that would so often be
the companion of the commerce.

Regardless, the disruption would certainly create some
enemies for Jesus, as shutting down the buying and selling also shuts down the
operations of the Temple, effectively shutting down the Temple itself. Not only is this having an effect on
livelihoods, but this is something of a symbolic pronouncement against the Temple,
as Jesus actively calls into question not what was there taking place, but rather
the ongoing need for the Temple.

Additionally and as would be expected, the disruption would
have had an impact on the finances of the Temple authorities, as they would
have had a stake in each transaction made within the Temple in relation to the sacrificial
cult. Thus, more enemies for Jesus.
These are more powerful enemies than the merchants who plied their
business at the pleasure of the Temple authorities. Thirdly, Jesus might
very well have been taking a chance at angering the people, and turning the
populace in general against Him, as they would have been unable to buy the
necessary items to make what they understood to be their necessary offerings,
thus jeopardizing their right-standing with their God (their covenant status).

However, it would seem that the potential for anger amongst
the commoners was quickly diffused, which can be seen when one encounters Jesus’
words in which He said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of
prayer for all nations’? But you have turned it into a den of robbers!”
(11:17b) In this, Jesus apparently reveals to the people that the
merchants in the Temple, in collusion with the Temple authorities, had
conspired together to cheat the people through false dealings in their
money-changing and sale of animals.Beyond that, it is possible that there is an implication that the Temple
authorities were cheating the people through their insistence that the
sacrifices were a continuing necessity.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Before one gets further into the record of the Gospels so as
to examine Jesus’ dealings with the Temple authorities (remembering that this
is an analysis occurring against the backdrop of the collapse of the Philistine
temple at the hands of Samson), it is quite useful to peer into the book of the
prophet Jeremiah, doing so in order to catch a glimpse of the types of things
that Jesus would have been saying in and about the Temple, and how His words
would have been received.

In the twenty-sixth chapter, the Lord God of Israel is said
to have spoken to Jeremiah, delivering instructions to him as to what to say to
the people of Jerusalem and Judah on the Lord’s behalf. The Creator God
says, “Tell them that the Lord says, ‘You must obey Me! You must live
according to the way I have instructed you in My laws. You must pay
attention to the exhortations of My servants the prophets. I have sent
them to you over and over again. But you have not paid any attention to
them’.” (26:4-5)

Similar things are to be heard from Jesus. He says, “I
am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through
Me” (John 14:6). Jesus is found to be
lamenting and saying, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and
stone those who are sent to you!” (Matthew 23:37a) In addition to that, one
can read the “Parable of the Tenants” in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which
reflects the theme of the rejection of the Creator God’s prophets. As is
reported, this parable produced anger on the part of the temple authorities
(chief priests and elders), as they realized, apparently quite astutely, that
it was spoken about them.

Returning to Jeremiah, one continues
to hear the covenant God speaking and says “If you do not obey Me, then I will
do to this temple what I did to Shiloh. And I will make this city an
example to be used in curses by people from all the nations on the earth”
(26:6). As Jesus consistently points to Himself, His ways, and His
kingdom as the locus of a needful obedience, and as one considers the
destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple that came about at the hands of the
Romans, one would do well to hear His voice in these words out of Jeremiah.

What is said to have been the experience
of Jeremiah as a result of the words of the Creator God that he is reported to
have delivered to the people of Judah? It is said that “The priests, the
prophets, and all the people heard Jeremiah say these things in the Lord’s
temple. Jeremiah had just barely finished saying all the Lord had commanded
him to say to all the people. All at once some of the priests, the
prophets, and the people grabbed him and shouted, ‘You deserve to die!’”
(26:7-8)

It is possible to see that this was not at all unlike that
which was experienced by Jesus when He spoke against the Temple and its ruling
authorities. Furthermore, the reader of the Gospel hears what Jesus would
eventually endure in the sneering questioning of His authority to act and speak
in a way that was perceived to be against the Temple, as Jeremiah hears “How
dare you claim the Lord’s authority to prophesy such things! How dare you
claim His authority to prophesy that this temple will become like Shiloh and
that this city will become an uninhabitable ruin!” (26:9)

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” He
pushed hard and the temple collapsed on the rulers and all the people in
it. He killed many more people in his death than he had killed during his
life. – Judges 16:30 (NET)

Before famously bringing down
the Philistine temple on top of him, Samson, who had been grinding in prison (Judges
16:21), was called out to entertain the assembled people. It is said that
when his enemies “really started celebrating, they said, ‘Call Samson so he can
entertain us!’ So they summoned Samson from the prison and he entertained
them. They made him stand between the two pillars” (16:25). These, presumably,
were the two main pillars of the Philistine temple of their god, Dagon.

While there, “Samson said to the young man who held his
hand, ‘Position me so I can touch the pillars that support the temple.
Then I can lean on them’.” (16:26) Standing before his enemies then,
“Samson called to the Lord” and he said, “O Master, Lord, remember me!
Strengthen me just one more time, O God, so I can get swift revenge against the
Philistines for my two eyes!” (16:28) With that, it is reported that,
“Samson said, ‘Let me die with the Philistines!’ He pushed hard and the
temple collapsed on the rulers and all the people in it” (16:30a).

Now, though all analogies
eventually break down, one can here find an analogy between Samson and
Jesus. How so? In His day, and though this should be taken as a
loose analogy, Jesus, if He saw Himself in the role of Samson, could very well
have considered the authorities that controlled the Jerusalem temple to be Philistines.
Though the temple was supposed to be the house of Israel’s God, the glory of the
Creator God (the shekinah) was not recognized to be dwelling there.

Ultimately then, it could have been appeared to be a temple
that existed for the honor and power of the men who controlled it. Sad stories such as that of the widow and her
mite illustrate this quite well. In this way, one could almost consider
it to be the counterpart to the Philistine temple.

It is well understood that part of Jesus’ message was that He
was the actual Temple of Israel’s God---the place inhabited by the Spirit of
the Creator God, and the place at which the realm of the Creator God overlapped
with the realm of those that bore the image of the Creator God (where heaven
and earth came together). In this same vein, Jesus even spoke of Himself
and His body as a Temple, saying “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will
raise it up again” (John 2:19).

Indeed, it is insisted that in Jesus dwelt the glory of the
covenant God of Israel (the shekinah), as is stated in the first chapter of
John (1:14). Thus, the temple that then stood
in Jerusalem, with its corrupted hierarchy under which the covenant people
experienced a veritable grinding for the “entertainment” and enrichment of
those that sought to maintain their place and prestige, could now be considered
to be illegitimate and redundant.

Friday, August 23, 2013

As the Gospel of John
reports, with many witnesses present and presumably able to confirm or deny the
story that is being told, Jesus calls Lazarus forth from the tomb. It is
reported that, as a result of this display of life-giving power, many people
came to believe in Jesus. Whether they
came to believe in Him as a miracle-worker or as the Messiah is not
specified. However, it can surely be imagined
that many that had witnessed the event, and who had perhaps witnessed the whole
of His coming to Bethany (the veritable parousia that had taken place), happily
joined with Mary and Martha in calling Him “Lord,” “Christ” (Messiah), and “Son
of God.”

This verbal elevation
of Jesus to the position that was categorically reserved for the king of Israel
(or one who would be king---remember, these are not titles of divinity in and
of themselves), without the requisite approval from or sanction of Rome, among a
number of other issues that are swirling around Jesus, is shown to have sparked
the Pharisees and chief priests and council to declare “If we allow Him to go
on in this way, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take
away our sanctuary and our nation” (11:48).

It seems that the
author wants those that hear or read the story to understand, along with what these
men clearly understand, that Jesus’ actions are intensely political. The author appears to be making this point in
the way he shapes his narrative, deftly and somewhat subversively pointing to
the fact and the ways of the coming kingdom of God in which Jesus rules over
all kings.

So Jesus, as is
discovered in the text, was acclaimed by the people for His miraculous work in
raising Lazarus, which was the culmination of a great number of miraculous
works and the point in the narrative where the tide turns and an onward rush to
the climactic conclusion of crucifixion and Resurrection begins. It is
quite likely that He gained the honor and respect and worship of all in Bethany
upon the event of this visit, which would be significant in an honor and shame
culture. A first century hearer or reader
would presumably be inclined to accord this Jesus honor as well. If he or she understood the underlying
movement of the narrative that suggests that Jesus is a greater King than
Caesar, then it is possible that this honor is accorded to Jesus at the expense
of the Caesar.

Figuratively, the
whole of the community, upon Lazarus’ return to life, would have bowed at the
feet of Jesus. Had Caesar visited Bethany, the response would have been expected
to have been the same. All would have bowed at his feet in recognition of
his power and rule and dominion over “the whole earth”. The main difference
is that when Jesus came to Bethany in his quasi-parousia, He brought life, and
it was the bringing of life that would have induced the authentic worship and
real honor. While it is true that Caesar
would also have received a form of worship, in the end, in spite of all the
good that he might very well have done or have been able to do for the people
under his rule, ultimately, men and women would only fall at Caesar’s feet
because he demanded it, carrying with him the threat and power of death.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

After a brief
exchange between Jesus and Martha that serves to outline the basic Jewish hope
concerning the resurrection of the dead, “Jesus said to her, ‘I am the
resurrection and the life. The one who believes in Me will live even if
he dies, and the one who lives and believes in Me will never die’.”
(11:25-26a) How does Martha respond? Again, making use of imperial
titles, “She replied, ‘Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of
God Who comes into the world’.” (11:27)

Now, even though both
“Christ” (Messiah) and “Son of God” are both titles for the Jewish king, and
are not necessarily meant to automatically connote divinity (ironically enough,
as opposed to the appellation of the term “son of god” to the Roman emperor as
part of the Caesar cult), one can here discover yet another appropriation of
emperor related language, further reinforcing the idea of the supremacy of the
eternal kingdom of the Creator God that is being established in and through Jesus
(Son of God), as opposed to the temporal kingdom of Rome that has been
established and perpetuated by the Caesar (son of god).

Shortly thereafter,
Mary, repeating Martha’s actions, “got up quickly and went to Him (Jesus)”
(11:29b). What follows is where it is learned that Jesus has not, in
fact, entered into Bethany, as the text states: “Now Jesus had not yet entered
the village, but was still in the place where Martha had come out to meet Him”
(11:30). This information is inserted parenthetically here in the middle
of the story, rather than at the beginning, which is a subtle placement which would
seem to serve to partially mask the politically subversive nature of the
language that is being used surrounding this event that leads up to Jesus’
grand parousia, which is His “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem. That particular parousia will bear all of the
explicit earmarks of what would be well-understood as a royal visit (depending
on one’s viewpoint) by a Caesar or by Israel’s King.

As would be expected
from a person going out of his or her city to greet the “Lord Caesar,” upon
reaching Jesus “Mary fell at His feet and said to Him, ‘Lord, if you had been
here, my brother would not have died’.” (11:32b) Here, Mary echoes
Martha, and once again use is made of an imperial title, as Mary calls Jesus “Lord.” The author clearly does not want his audience
to lose sight of Jesus’ position.

It was at this point
then, with Jesus having been greeted outside the city, with people falling at
His feet, referring to Him as Lord and Son of God and Messiah, and making note
of His great power, that Jesus finally enters into the village. It seems
that the tomb is in the village, or at least adjacent to the village, which
would account for the author’s comment that Jesus “had not yet” made His way to
the village.

The reader makes note
of the fact that Mary did not go to Jesus by herself (11:31,33,36), so when
Jesus does make His way to the tomb, presumably, it is with a group of
people. Since Martha’s voice can again be heard breaking into the story when
Jesus asks for the stone over the mouth of the cave to be rolled away, one can
also presume that Martha, as one that has bowed at the feet of Jesus and called
Him Lord, was one of the people in the procession that made its way to the tomb
with Jesus.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

If a compare and
contrast is underway, one glaring contrast between Jesus and the Caesar can be
found in verses previously quoted from the third chapter of John. There
it is said that the covenant God of Israel “gave His one and only Son, so that
everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. For
God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the
world should be saved through Him” (3:16b-17). Caesar, the man entitled
with “son of god,” was looked to as the one who dragged the world from darkness
to light. With this, the parallel
between John and the Augustus inscription becomes increasingly obvious.

Yes, it was Caesar
Augustus who was said to have brought order out of the chaos. It was
Caesar Augustus that was said to be responsible for the life and vitality of
the world, with this spread throughout the world via the pax Romana (Roman
peace). It is Caesar Augustus who is referred to as the “Savior” of the
world. Ironically, though war would be almost endless, Augustus is
credited with putting an end to war. It is worth nothing that, though
death continues, Jesus is credited with putting an end to death.

For Ceasar of course,
the end of war was accomplished by crushing his enemies through massive
warfare. Furthermore, it is said that Caesar Augustus is the fulfillment
of all hopes and in him the world has “good news.” How did this son of
god “save” the world? How did he bring the world into new life? It
could be argued that he did so through the instrument of death.

He, his predecessors,
and those that would follows and take up his mantle, slaughtered millions so as
to usher in an era of “peace” and to give their version of life to the
world. Effectively, in order to give the world life and vitality through
the establishment of the Roman empire, the world experienced an almost
unprecedented level of condemnation. The other Son of God, however, is
said to bring eternal life and peace and light, which will be accomplished and
effected through His worldwide kingdom.

As the Gospel of John
informs its readers, through Jesus the world will be saved, but this salvation
will not come about through the world-condemning instrument of war and its
power of death. Ultimately, this
salvation will come about through the laying down of His own life and going
willfully into death in an act of self-sacrificial love---making Himself
subject to that which was (and still is) the Caesar’s only true power.

Returning to the
issue at hand then, Martha can be heard speaking to Jesus and saying, “Lord, if
you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know
that whatever You ask from God, God will grant you” (John 11:21-22). In
calling Jesus “Lord,” and doing so in the context of what is increasingly
looking to be a “parousia” of Jesus, Martha has conferred upon Him one of the
titles that was then accorded to and reserved for the Caesar. Much like
that which would have been experienced by the emperor when he would visit
subjects within his realm, the one that has come out to greet Jesus makes it a
point to honor the world’s ruler and to make comment upon His power.

To this point, it
seems that the author of the Gospel has been building a case for Jesus as a
royal personage---the ruler of the world in fact---with this especially noticeable
when viewed in the light of that which was thought of and said about the
Caesar---the one who was then looked upon as the ruler of the world.

To the end of
presenting Jesus as royalty, this particular Gospel narrative begins with Jesus
(personifying “the Word”) being heralded as the Creator God (John 1:1).
It is said that “in Him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.
And the light shines on in the darkness… We saw His glory---the glory of
the one and only, full of grace and truth… For we have all received from His
fullness one gracious gift after another” (1:4-5a,14b,16).

A bit further on,
Jesus is referred to as the “one and only Son” of the God of Israel (an epithet
that had also been applied to Israel itself) and that “everyone who believes in
Him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son
into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through
Him” (3:16b-17). Shortly thereafter, one again reads “that the light has
come into the world” (3:19b), and later on also finds Jesus speaking of Himself
as “the light of the world” (8:12).
These things are said about Jesus in a world that is provided context by
the presence and rule and worship of the Caesar.

Interestingly enough,
in an inscription from 9BC, Caesar Augustus is hailed as “The most
divine… we should consider co-equal to the beginning of all things… for when
everything was falling [into disorder] and tending toward dissolution, he
restored it once more and gave to the whole world a new aura; …the common good
fortune of all…The beginning of life and vitality. …All the cities unanimously
adopt the birthday of the divine as the new beginning of the year…
Whereas Providence, which has regulated our whole existence…has brought our life
to the climax of perfection in giving to us (this man), whom it [Providence]
filled with strength…the welfare of men, and who being to us and our
descendants as Savior, has put an end to war and has set all things in Order;
and [whereas] having become [god] manifest, has fulfilled all the hopes of
earlier times… in surpassing all the benefactors who proceeded him… and
whereas, finally, the birthday of the god has been for the whole world the
beginning of the good news concerning him [therefore let a new era begin from
his birth].”

Though this was
written of Augustus, who was the first of the Caesars to be hailed as the son
of god, all subsequent Caesars were accorded the same title, which provides
information about the way in which the emperor was viewed, with this being so
even at the time of the writing of the Gospel of John (presumably late first
century). The parallels between the things that are here said about the
Caesar in the Augustus inscription, and the things that are said about Jesus in
the Gospel of John, are quite interesting and inescapable. Similar claims
are being made for both, while a stark and clear contrast is being drawn. A person could be forgiven for believing that
the author of John had the Ceasar cult and such inscriptions in mind (along
with Genesis naturally) when penning the opening of his work.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

No, He did not go straight to the tomb or to the house of
Lazarus’ sisters, Mary and Martha, with whom He was known to have shared a
close relationship---at least, knowledge of this close relationship is implied
in the Gospel narrative. Instead, and quite curiously, Jesus is reported
to have stopped outside the village. Does this not seem a bit
strange? It does indeed. It does so because the one who reads the
Gospel is presumably already aware of the outcome of the situation, already privy
to the full story.

Because the full story is known, together with the way the
story happily ends with Lazarus being raised from the dead, it is known that
Jesus loved both Lazarus and his sisters.
One would think that this love would compel Him to not only not delay His
visit to Bethany, but also to go straight to the grieving sisters without
hesitation upon reaching their town. So why does the story, as told exclusively
in the Gospel of John, make the point that He did not immediately go to these
people that He loved?

It may seem redundant to point out, but as the story of the
raising of Lazarus begins, Jesus’ love for this family was immediately evident,
as it is said that the two sisters went to the trouble of sending a message to
Jesus that Lazarus was sick. Why go to
the trouble to do this unless the expectation was that Jesus would come quickly
to the aid of the one He loved? Coupled with Jesus’ not immediately rushing
to provided the requested and likely expected assistance to His friend, this
stopping outside of Bethany and not even going into the town seems doubly
strange. If it seems a bit perplexing to those that would later hear or
read this story, one can probably imagine that it was every bit as frustrating
for these two sisters of Lazarus in that day as well, and that along with them,
their fellow villagers were likely struck by the oddity of this
occurrence.

Not only that, but in small, tight-knit communities as
Bethany no doubt was, not only would the entire village know that Lazarus was
sick, they would also know that Lazarus had died. It is likely that they would be aware of the
fact that a message had been sent to the miracle-worker Jesus, informing Him of
the sickness of Lazarus. They would also
learn that Jesus did not respond to the message by coming to Bethany with all
rapidity (perhaps even bringing a bit of shame to this family), and they would
now know that when Jesus did finally make His way to Bethany, that He stayed
just outside the town, forcing the grieving sisters to come out to Him.

Almost undoubtedly, they would know all of these things in
the larger context of the hope of Mary and Martha that Jesus could do something
about the sickness, which can be seen to be manifested in their urgent message
to Jesus about Lazarus’ sickness and the words that are reported to have been
spoken to Him when they finally see Him.
This hope, that would eventually be vindicated by their brother’s
raising at the hands and words of Jesus, would have been reasonably and
understandably spurred by the healings and other miraculous occurrences that
had marked Jesus’ ministry, not to mention Jesus’ love for Lazarus and his sisters.

Naturally, based on
the information heretofore provided, Jesus’ visit to Bethany should be
considered in the light of the parousia of the Caesar. So when one hears or reads that “when Martha
heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet Him” (John 11:20a), a context
has been created. It is here necessary to bear in mind that the readers
of this Gospel, in the first century, would be quite familiar with an imperial
parousia. Those that would hear this
story in the world in which Jesus was said to have become King of all by His
own Resurrection, would find that this going out of the village to meet Jesus,
on the part of Martha, very much fits into the mold of expectations concerning
an imperial visit.

Monday, August 19, 2013

Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still in
the place where Martha had come out to meet Him. – John 11:30 (NET)

In the time of Jesus, when the emperor
(the Caesar) came to pay a visit to a town or a city within a colony or
province under his dominion, his visit was generally referred to as a
“parousia.” When this visit would be made, as one would expect, the great
emperor, for whom notoriety and honor (especially in an honor and shame
culture) would be of paramount concern, would not simply enter into the town or
city un-announced.

Such a thing would be unthinkable, especially in light of
the Caesar-cult (worship of Caesar as a divine being---the son of god) that was
so prevalent in the first century world so dominated by Rome. Quite the
opposite would occur, in fact, as the Caesar would be lauded in grand fashion
by the people of the places that he deigned to visit. After all, the man
making this visit was rightly viewed as the most powerful man in the world, and
would be afforded as much honor as possible.

Not only would this honoring of the god-man be expected, but
it would also demanded. To effect this, quite apart from Caesar simply
entering into the city by himself, or with nothing more than his imperial
entourage, a large group from the city would be expected to go out to meet him
while he was still outside of or at some distance from their city. This would occur while all (or at least most)
inside the city would be preparing themselves, in a conformity (for some) that
was most likely under the threat of physical pain or even death (or shame), to
receive the exalted emperor with the appropriate acclamation and with
reverence.

Upon greeting the Caesar outside
the city boundaries, the selected and special group from the city, quite
naturally, would return to the city with Caesar
and his royal entourage in tow, celebrating his entrance into yet another
place in which he was acknowledged to both reign and have complete and
unrivaled dominion. This would seem to be an entirely appropriate
reception for the one who, beginning with that which would come to be said of
the emperor Augustus, is referred to as “lord” (the lord of the world who
claimed allegiance and loyalty from his subjects throughout the whole of his
empire), whose birthday was referred to as “evangelion” or “good news,” is
referred to as the “son of god” and “savior,” and who was thought of as the one
who had finally brought light and peace and order into a dark and often chaotic world.

Having provided that basic bit
of information, the scope of this study move to the eleventh chapter of the
Gospel of John, and the story of raising of Lazarus from the dead at the hands
and word of Jesus. In the story, one is able to observe some rather
interesting elements, making His visit to Bethany something of a “parousia” by
Jesus. The first thing to notice, though it is not revealed immediately,
is that after Jesus had remained in the place where He was for two days after
hearing that Lazarus (the one He is said to have loved) was sick (John 11:6),
and upon His finally reaching the town of Bethany after what can be thought of
as an unexpected delay, Jesus did not immediately go into the village.

The crucifixion and
vindicating Resurrection of Jesus the Christ, which (among a great many things)
evidenced the grand defeat of death and the dawn of a new age, was a battle in
which one could certainly find purpose to use the words “attack” and “shields” and
“spear” and “lance” (Psalm 35:1-5). Together with that, the words of the
Psalm ask for the destruction of the enemy (35:8). However, when it came
to those who actually carried out the crucifixion---those who were temporary
adversaries and very much a part of the world for which Jesus was going into a
cursed death in order to redeem, all are again forced to consider Jesus’ words
of forgiveness, and find displayed an altogether different demeanor.

Rather than a request
for attack and destruction to be visited upon those who brought Him harm, what
is instead to be found is only a request by the Psalmist (again, with words
that could eventually be understood to have fallen from the lips of the Christ
as He endured the horrible ordeal of the cross) that “those who want to harm me
be totally embarrassed and ashamed! May those who arrogantly taunt me be
covered with shame and humiliation!” (35:26) This could be viewed in two
ways. In the first way, it can be viewed on the surface level, with the
understandable desire for these adversaries to experience the same type of
embarrassment and humiliation (35:4) which is requested for those who fight and
attack (35:1).

In the second way, one
is forced to dig deeper, so as to remember Jesus’ intercession on the behalf of
His tormentors and to consider the prevalent cultural equating of
embarrassment, shame, and humiliation with going down into death, and thus quite
possibly see a desire on the part of Jesus for these men to join Him in His
death (exile) so that they too can be experience redemption (exodus).
With this, one is pressed to consider the words of the Apostle Paul in his
letter to the Galatians, and his being “crucified with Christ” (2:20), sharing
in His shame and humiliation so that He might truly live.

By the trusting
allegiance of the gift of faith that makes Jesus the King and representative of
believers and of all people, and enables those that cast their lot with Him to
join with Him in His crucifixion, the same group of people is also enabled to
join with Him in His Resurrection and in the expectation of the great
resurrection and renewal and restoration of creation that is happening and is
also to come. As subjects of His kingdom, believers, and indeed the whole
of the creation, awaits His final vindication, and find themselves poised as
“those who desire my vindication” and in so doing “shout for joy and rejoice”
(35:27).

That shouting for joy
and rejoicing can and should very well take the form of preaching His Gospel in
both word and deed, and so proclaiming His present kingdom and His ongoing
rule, though the presentation of that message may bring temporary shame and
humiliation. The believer, participating in that kingdom and its work,
gladly endure such things, as through the Spirit of God, the glorified Lord
Jesus mysteriously works through and in those that our allied with Him to create
lights for the glory of the Creator God, as they confess through the entirety
of their beings the desire to “tell others about Your justice, and praise You
all day long” (35:28).

Sunday, August 18, 2013

This mention of
“sorrow” should vaults the conscious reader to a recollection of the “suffering
servant” of Isaiah, thus providing (along with Jesus before He would come to
His time of suffering) a more fully-rounded sense of what these sorrows would
and did entail. The verses that follow remind the modern reader of the
letter to the Hebrews and the great High Priest that is able to sympathize with
the human weaknesses that continue to be experienced by the covenant people(4:15),
the Gospel of Luke and Jesus weeping over the city of Jerusalem (19:41), and
the Gospel of John and Jesus weeping within the story of the raising of the one
whom He loved (11:35), as one finds “When they were sick, I wore sackcloth, and
refrained from eating food. I mourned for them as I would for a friend or
my brother. I bowed down in sorrow as if I were mourning for my mother”
(Psalm 35:13a,14).

Unfortunately, Jesus
did not receive complete reciprocity in these matters, and because of that He
could say, “when I stumbled, they rejoiced and gathered together; they gathered
together to ambush me” (35:15a). As He would begin to undergo the various
inflictions of physical brutality---the whip that would be endured as He made
His way to His ultimate vindication---Jesus could maintain His reflection on
this Psalm and its words in which “They tore at me without stopping to rest”
(35:15b). As He stumbled under the weight of the beam that He is reported
to have attempted to carry to Golgotha, Jesus would remember “When I tripped, they
taunted me relentlessly, and tried to bite me” (35:16).

Again, it is
necessary to pause to remember that this particular adversary is not death, at
least not directly, but rather it is men presumably corrupted by the power of
darkness, as that darkness attempted to assert its power over the one that
would eventually come to be recognized and called the Son-of-God-in-power
(Romans 1:4 – contra Caesar). Jesus could cry out “O Lord, how long are
you going to just stand there and watch this? Rescue me from their
destructive attacks; guard my life from the young lions! Do not let those
who are my enemies for no reason gloat over me! Do not let those who hate
me without cause carry out their wicked schemes! They are ready to devour
me; they say, ‘Aha! Aha! We’ve got you!” (35:17,19,21) In all this, Jesus does not call for divine retribution
against His human antagonists. He always
knew who and what was the true enemy from which He sought and hoped for
vindication.

Even if He did speak
such words that were, in essence, “My Father, if possible, let this cup pass
for Me” (Matthew 26:39b), the watchword over all of this, as Jesus endured the
great painful and shaming ordeal on behalf of Israel and the creation, is “Yet
not what I will, but what You will” (26:39c). The will of the Father, of
course, can be found in what follows in this Psalm, which is “take notice,
Lord! O Lord, do not remain far from me! Rouse yourself, wake up
and vindicate me! My God and Lord, defend my just cause! Vindicate
me by Your justice, O Lord my God!” (35:22-24a)

This vindication would
ultimately be the Resurrection, as Jesus would march forth from the tomb into a
new world---that being the inaugurated kingdom of God on earth---in which the
hosts of heaven were marshaled to witness His victorious coronation as King,
and in which Jesus would honor the faithful Father for His vindicating justice,
saying “I will give you thanks in the great assembly; I will praise You before
a large crowd of people!” (35:18)

Saturday, August 17, 2013

In a culture in which shame was very much equated with
death, the message of the Resurrection is that death itself that is now to be
ashamed. In an ironic twist, it is death alone that now experiences its
long held and once mighty power.

Though it had rightfully entered into the covenant God’s
creation along with its corruption and decay, death had been an over-reaching
usurper within that creation. The
message of the Scriptural narrative is that the Creator God had long desired,
through the use of those that He had created as and to be the wise,
image-bearing stewards of His creation, to set that creation to rights and to
redeem and restore it. This would
ultimately be accomplished through Jesus, and through those that would be
brought into a believing union with Jesus by submission to His royal authority
and allegiance to Him and His kingdom and its principles, as He was the one
that bore the precise and exact image of the Creator God, as well as being the one
who would share that image (and the precise knowledge of the Creator God) with
His brethren.

In what is said to be the work of the Spirit, because of a
trusting allegiance to Jesus as the true King, the Creator God would then work
through His covenant people to deal with the corruption and decay and seemingly
ever-present evil that represent death’s residual power and lingering effects
in a world now ruled by Jesus. With the Resurrection power of Jesus in
the world, and with its being administered through the Spirit’s mysterious work
of faith and the preaching and doing of the Gospel of Jesus, death, though
real, was now to be considered little more than a roaring lion, lacking the absolute
power and mastery over creation that it had once possessed.

By means of the cross, death seems
to have made an attempt to oppress Jesus and to rob Him of His victory and
rightful messianic rule, and through that oppression, because Jesus stood as
the King and representative of all of God’s people, death attempted to oppress
and to rob those very people of the Creator God. However, the fact of death being conquered by
the Resurrection, which is believed to have redeemed mankind and the creation
that humanity was intended to steward from its long exile, and ushered in the
kingdom of the Creator God and an entirely new age of restoration and renewal
and reconciliation through the very power of the Gospel and its declaration of
the universal Lordship of Jesus in both word and deed, causes the Creator God’s
people, in union with their Lord and Savior, to say “O Lord, who can compare to
You? You rescue the oppressed and needy from those who try to overpower
them; the oppressed and needy from those who try to rob them” (Psalm 35:10b).

As one continues to
move through this Psalm, and continues to find that the one called “Savior” is
able to take up the words of the Psalmist---not only as He endured the ordeal
of His passion, but even before that, as He would search the Scriptures so as
to better understand His vocation and what it was that He came to believe was
in store for Him as He trudged the wearying path of Messiah-ship---the observer
moves from a consideration of Jesus battle with the enemy of death, to His
tenuous engagements with adversaries much closer to hand. It is a
relatively simple matter to discover Jesus, remembering His trial and reading
“Violent men perjure themselves, and falsely accuse me. They repay me
evil for the good I have done; I am overwhelmed with sorrow” (35:11-12).

Friday, August 16, 2013

May those who desire my
vindication shout for joy and rejoice! – Psalm 35:27a (NET)

The thirty-fifth Psalm begins
with “O Lord, fight those who fight with me! Attack those who attack
me! …Rise up to help me! …Assure me with these words: I am your
deliverer!” (35:1,2b,3b) As these words are read in the light of the knowledge
of the Savior, of His crucifixion at the hands of the Romans at the behest of
the Temple authorities, and His unexpected Resurrection from the grave and its
signal that death had ultimately been defeated, it would seem to be quite
natural to want to place them on the lips of Jesus as He endured what would
come to be understood as His saving ordeal.

However, because Jesus did not speak against His accusers,
nor is He said to have spoken against those that carried out the sentence of
death that was passed against Him, it is actually not appropriate to have Him
asking His God to fight and attack those that were responsible for His death.
Instead, what is recorded is that Jesus asked the one He called Father to readily
forgive them for their actions that He believed to have been performed in
ignorance. So if these words are, in fact, to be somehow ascribed to
Jesus, with a direction in mind (which does seem like a reasonable proposition),
their direction needs to be properly understood.

Ultimately, who was it that could
be said to have fought with Jesus? Who was it that attacked Him?
Who was His great enemy? From whom did
He desire deliverance? The answer to these questions is “death.” If
one was to peruse the New Testament writings that reflected on the life and
ministry of Jesus, with many of these writings pre-dating the final composition
of the Gospels (though oral narratives that would certainly have taken a shape
not unlike that which would eventually be written were in circulation), it
would be a relatively easy matter to see that some of the earliest believers
thought this to be the case.

It would seem then that it was the battle with death into
which Jesus asked His Father to enter, to fight on His behalf, to rise up to
attack. Because Jesus entered the battle as well, and did not ask His
Father to deliver Him in a way that allowed Him to stand absent from the pain
of death, Jesus appeared to know that the cross must be endured. Owing to
that, and if such words could have crossed His mind and His lips, Jesus could
be here considered to be asking for an assurance that He would be delivered up
from the power of death, after willingly allowing Himself to be overcome by His
great enemy. It must be borne in mind
that Jesus did not go into the ordeal of the crucifixion with a knowledge that
He would indeed be raised. He did so
with a hope that He would be vindicated and redeemed from the exile into which
He was flinging Himself.

The Resurrection that followed is
said to have stripped death of its power. From that point on, though it
would continue to be very real and very present, death would ultimately be a
toothless foe in the face of the promise of the power of resurrection and new
life for the people of the Creator God. Death had held sway from the time
of the fall, but with the Resurrection, what could be seen as a further request
of Jesus, of “May those who seek my life be embarrassed and humiliated!
May those who plan to harm be turned back and ashamed!” (35:4) was answered in
the affirmative.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

With this somewhat clear presentation of idolatry as the
reason for judgment to fall upon Israel, one can then go on to make sense of
reading about children that “are always thinking about their altars and their
sacred poles dedicated to the goddess Asherah, set up beside green tress on the
high hills and on the mountains and in the fields” (Jeremiah 17:2-3a). Following that, the God of Israel says, “I
will give your wealth and all your treasures away as plunder” (17:3b). So
here an explicit connection is made between idolatry and the material wealth of
the people. Before that point is reached here in chapter seventeen however,
the reader will have stumbled across some words that should help to properly
shape the conception of the true problem of idolatry that was being presented
here by the people of Judah.

In the sixteenth chapter, when the
Creator God gives Jeremiah an answer to give to the people that might find
themselves questioning the reason for the judgment and disaster that was going
to befall them, He says to tell them, “It is because your ancestors rejected Me
and paid allegiance to other gods. They have served them and worshiped
them. But they have rejected Me and not obeyed My law” (16:11).
That sounds pretty bad, but it does not end there. The covenant God
continues His answer with “And you have acted even more wickedly than your
ancestors! Each one of you have followed the stubborn inclinations of
your own wicked heart and not obeyed Me” (16:12).

What is to be found in that statement? Effectively, it
is self-idolatry---the same old sin from the time of the garden---which always
seems to get a far harsher reaction and treatment from the Creator God than the
simple worshiping of wood and stone. It is with this conception of
self-idolatry that one can then move back to the Creator God’s statements about
the human mind and its deceit and incurable “badness.” Following that
statement then, one finds “I, the Lord, probe into people’s minds. I
examine people’s hearts. I deal with each person according to how he has
behaved. I give them what they deserve based on what they have done”
(17:10).

What does this have to do with
idolatry or self-idolatry? Well, connecting the thoughts concerning idolatry
and wealth and treasures found just a few verses before, the reader goes on to learn
in the next verse about “The person who gathers wealth by unjust means”
(17:11a). This is what follows talk of the human mind being more
deceitful than anything else and incurably bad. It could be said that the
person who gathers wealth by unjust means is guilty of self-idolatry,
especially in light of the statement in Deuteronomy that the Lord “is the One
Who gives ability to get wealth” (8:18b).

Surely, it can be said that a Creator God-granted ability to
get wealth will see wealth accumulated by just means, and will therefore result
in proper worship of the God that gave the ability, and Who therefore gave the
wealth. Wealth gained by unjust means will result in worship of what
provided for the accumulation of wealth, which is the marred and
falling-short-of-the-divine-image heart and mind that is said to have come
about because of the desire on the part of the first humans to be like their God.
Because of this, it can be surmised that not only was idolatry, along with its
companion of self-idolatry, the reason for the judgment that came upon the
people of the covenant God, but one can also now understand that the gathering
of wealth by unjust means, which will generally be connected with idolatry and
with the extension of suffering and oppression, was a reason for that God’s
judgment as well.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

The human mind is more deceitful than anything else.
It is incurably bad. Who can understand it? - Jeremiah 17:9
(NET)

With these words, the God of
Israel, presumably speaking through His prophet Jeremiah, sends forth a
stinging rebuke against His covenant people. Before attributing an
incurably bad and deceitful mind to His own people that had been culled out
from humanity so as to be the shining lights of His glory in and to the world,
He accuses them of placing “trust in mere human beings” (17:5b). The
Creator God here says that He will curse His people that do such things, “who
depend on mere flesh and blood for their strength” (17:5c), because in that,
they demonstrate that their “hearts have turned away from the Lord”
(17:5d).

Of course, when the reader of Scripture stumbles across any
mentions of curses, that reader’s thoughts should be caused to dwell upon the
curses to be found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that are especially pronounced
against idolatry, which are set in juxtaposition to the blessings that are to
be enjoyed for faithfulness to covenant obligations, the proper worship and
recognition of the covenant God, and appropriate bearing of the divine image.

The statement about the human
mind found here in Jeremiah is not necessarily to be taken as a generalization
and universal condemnation. Rather, it
is specifically connected to trust in human beings, so it asks to be understood
as a reference to idolatry. Jeremiah is in the midst of communicating
judgment and exile to the Creator God’s people, and in doing, lets them know
that their idolatry is the key component of that judgment. The
implications of the judgment is that rather than being a light reflecting the
glory of their God, and subsequently directing the nations to the worship of
the one and only God of Israel, they had instead imitated the nations surrounding
them and gone after their idols. It is because of that then, that “The
Lord said, ‘So I will let them know My mighty power in judgment. Then
they will know that My Name is the Lord’.” (16:21)

Remembering that there is a wider context and a continuous
narrative stream in Jeremiah, it is appropriate to back up to the fifteenth
chapter so as to learn that the punishment to be rendered by their God for this
idolatry will be severe. The covenant God
speaks about His people and says “I will have war kill them. I will have
dogs drag off their dead bodies. I will have birds and wild beasts devour
and destroy their corpses. I will make all the people in all the kingdoms
of the world horrified at what has happened to them” (15:3b-4a). Naturally,
kingdoms being horrified at the woes of Israel stands in stark and glaring
contrast to what the God of Israel had intended for His covenant people.

It is worth inquiring as to when
the fate of this people was sealed? It is suggested that the were going
to suffer judgment “because of what Hezekiah’s son Manasseh, king of Judah, did
in Jerusalem” (15:4b). As is to be routinely found in the historical
narrative of Israel, the king stands for and represents the people, with the
people often subject to cursing because of him and his actions. Later on
in the Scriptural narrative, it will be possible to find another King that
stands for and represents the people, and that it is through Him that the
people of God become blessed.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

As part of that fulfillment of those ancient promises made to Israel, it is
said that “None of their enemies could resist them” (Joshua 21:44c). They are
reminded that this was not taking place because of what they had done, but because
their God was faithful to His people, to His promises, and to His creation. Just in case they or an observer needed one
more reminder of that, and of the reason that their enemies fell before them,
the author takes yet another opportunity to point to the promises, writing that
“Not one of the Lord’s faithful promises to the family of Israel was left
unfulfilled; every one was realized” (21:45). Not only would this have
served as a reminder of all that had been accomplished on their behalf, as they
would remember and review the events of the past, but it should also have
served as a blessed warning of how things could go in the future.

Israel had received
promises from their God in regards to the covenant. The Scriptural
narrative shows that they had been presented with the ways of both blessing and
cursing. The blessings were as glorious as the curses were severe; and
the same powerful, faithful Creator God that had made them secure in the land
could become the powerful, faithful God that would bring about the curses that
were outlined in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy if the covenant people failed
to keep the covenant requirements that were designed to make them a light to
the nations in reflection of the glory of their God. The righteousness
(covenant faithfulness) of their God could cut both ways, to their benefit or
to their detriment, and this was not to be forgotten. When times of
destruction and exile (cursing) would come to Israel, His people could look
back upon these words from Joshua and say “Not one of the Lord’s promises to
the family of Israel was left unfulfilled; every one was realized.”

As the events that
are recorded in the book of Joshua were said to be occurring, and as the Lord was
believed to be causing Israel to be victorious and to prosper, one can imagine
Joshua thinking something along the lines of the words that are to be found in
the third Psalm. As the believer lives and walks an unfolding life of
faith, empowered to “do battle” with the forces of darkness and evil as an
instrument of the Creator’s God’s good in the world, as did Israel in the land,
the believer is well able to consider the same words. Thus, the believers joins with Joshua and says,
“I am not afraid of the multitude of people who attack me from all directions”
(Psalm 3:6).

Why? Because Israel
and renewed Israel has a God of promise to whom they call and say, “Rise up,
Lord! Deliver me, my God!” (3:7a). Deliverance, of course would
have been and should be understood as redemption from cursing and the ending of
exile. Of what will that deliverance consist and how would it be brought
about? What did Joshua see? He trusted and could say, “Yes, You
will strike all my enemies on the jaw; You will break the teeth of the wicked”
(3:7b). Israel was delivered from one enemy (Egypt) to another (people of
the promised land), and their God continued to deliver, working through them
for strikes and breaking. This is what was said to have been the
experience of the Creator God’s covenant people against their enemies.

The covenant God of
Israel effectively did this same thing, in Jesus, for His covenant people for
all time. When the greatest act of covenant faithfulness occurred and
Jesus was raised up from the dead, the ancient enemy of the covenant God’s
creation was defeated. Consequently, redemption
from exile from that good creation was made possible. The Apostle Paul
wrote that in the Resurrection of Jesus, that death lost its sting (1 Corinthians
15:55). Figuratively, death was struck on the jaw. Death had its
teeth broken. It’s bite and it’s sting were lost, and though death still
intrudes upon the creation and a lengthy campaign of battles against the forces
of death will be waged, such are waged in the sure confidence that the promise
to the Creator God’s people of settlement within a promised land---a renewed
creation (the kingdom of God made manifest on earth)---will be realized.
Not one promise will go unfulfilled, because Jesus is Lord.

Monday, August 12, 2013

It is said that when
the kings of the people that were occupying the promised land came out to do
battle against Joshua and Israel, that their armies “were as numerous as the
sand on the seashore” (11:4b). Quite naturally, the use of this language would
have been meant to evoke thoughts of the Creator God’s promises to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. To each of those individuals, the covenant God promised
to give them descendants as numerous as the sand on the seashore, so the fact
that kings and armies were coming out against Israel, in great numbers and with
those numbers reported in this way (imagining that the word would have spread
among the people of Israel in this same way), should not have been a cause for
panic.

Rather, it would have
been a reminder of the promises of their faithful and powerful God. Because He is reported to have not failed, up
to that point, to bring any of His great promises to pass, there would thus be
no reason to be faithless in the face of this multitudinous enemy. Yes,
the words of the Divine catalog, as the whole of the narrative is crafted to
hang together, are carefully chosen to remind and reveal and demonstrate the
covenant faithfulness of the Creator God.

In the midst of that
reliance upon their God’s faithful power, as it had been demonstrated through
plagues, deliverance from Egypt, the splitting of a sea, pillars of cloud and
manna from heaven, water from a rock, and more, there was the ongoing
realization that the campaign would be long and the battles would be numerous. Eventually however, there was another
realization that the land would eventually be handed over and given to the
saints of God, Israel, His covenant people, with His power exercised through
His people. Indeed, as one reaches the end of the book of Joshua, one reads
that “the Lord gave Israel all the land He had solemnly promised to their
ancestors, and they conquered it and lived in it” (21:43).

Again, the
opportunity is taken to point to the Creator God’s promises and His power to
perform according to His promises in order to bring about His own purposes.
Such is the constant refrain of the Scriptures, always pointing to the actions
of the God of Israel, which should prompt praise and worship of the gracious,
righteous, and redeeming God on the part of the believer, along with a desire
to be fitted into His plans by the working of His Spirit within, rather than
causing those that call upon His name to turn inward in consideration of what
things to avoid so as to be able to live as one ought to live. The life of the Christian is an outward
spirituality---always expressing itself in action that shows that Jesus indeed
is Lord and that the land indeed has been conquered. It is much more than a personal, private matter
of faith and conscience.

Continuing on in
Joshua, the reader finds that “The Lord made them secure” (21:44a). Why is
it that He did this? It is said that He did so “in fulfillment of all He
had solemnly promised their ancestors” (21:44b). Here is yet another
signpost that directs the believer to further realize the basis upon which he
or she lives and serves, which is the power and faithfulness of the God that is
revealed in Scripture and in the person of Jesus, that has and will bring all of
His promises to pass, with the Resurrection the evidence of and great seal upon
those promises It is a constant looking away from self, with that gaze
directed towards the Creator God for the purpose of fitting within His purposes
for the renewal and redemption of His creation.

Sunday, August 11, 2013

In the end though, because Jesus is reigning and because He
has a people in covenant with Him through their confession of Him as Lord of
all, in spite of the evil that can be seen, each and every time a true divine
image-bearer (Jesus believer) is successfully able to gain a victory over the
powers that attempt to compel a joining in the evil---each time a covenant
member engages in an act of sacrifice and love that benefits only the
recipient---then and there is one able to overcome the self-idolatry that was
the primary reason for mankind’s initial rebellion against the responsibility
given by the Creator God.

It is in this way that the
covenant people, with a nod to ancient Israel in purpose if not methods, consistently
attempts to annihilate the obstinate enemy.
They do so, thankfully, in an exercise of mercy, knowing that before
Jesus accepted them into His kingdom by an act of mercy, they stood in the same
position as these kings and enemies of Israel, in need of that mercy but deserving
of none. In such engagements, as believers are able to overcome, they begin
to rightly bear that long-lost divine image, and in doing so, are able to embody
and manifest Jesus’ ultimate victory over evil.

With each act of mercy and self-sacrificial love, believers point
to the fact that Jesus does indeed reign, and that through the mysterious
activity of the Holy Spirit and the proclamation of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord)
in both word and deed, the power of transformation and renewal and restoration
and reconciliation is at work in this world.
Not only is it proven to be at work, but all of these things are
reminders that it has been at work ever since the tomb was split open and
Resurrection power flooded into this world.

The Creator God enables His people to harness that flood of
power and to carry it into the world through the preaching of the Gospel of
Jesus---again, in word and in deed. The
doing takes an equal place alongside the teaching (as indicated by the opening
of the book of Acts), for why would there be any need to teach if it was not
for the purpose of doing that which embodies and furthers the reach of the
kingdom of heaven on earth (rather than teaching strictly for the purpose of training
people to refrain from doing that which is labeled as “sin”).

In all of the doing and teaching, as the Resurrection is
proclaimed and embraced and brought to bear in the world, there is no denial that
evil is pervasive. Indeed, Israel could
not deny that they had to go to battle to gain victories over that which their God
pointed to as the embodiment of evil in the land of His promise, so even though
it is in a world that has been and is being re-shaped by the message and power
of the crucifixion and the Resurrection, why should it be any different for
renewed Israel?

One is also able to read that
“Joshua conquered the whole land, just as the Lord had promised” (11:23a).
So too did Jesus, with his conquering also occurring according to what He (and
those that believe in Him) believed to be His God’s promise to Him. The
words that follow in Joshua point to the final outcome of Jesus’ conquering, in
that the tribes of Israel were assigned the portions of the land for which they
were responsible, which they were to rule and steward along with Joshua, with
it being said that “the land was free of war” (11:23c). It seems that Israel
was charged with a responsibility to react and respond to evil, in full
knowledge of their God’s promise of a victory already won.

Because the Creator God is the same yesterday, today, and
forever, and because He does not change, in this day, the renewed Israel that
is the covenant people via believing union with the Christ must do the same as their
forbears in covenant, reacting and responding to evil in full knowledge of their
God’s promise of a victory already won. In both instances, the fact that
there was a foregone conclusion in place did not remove the responsibility to
work according to the Creator God’s plan that His covenant-bearers be His
lights in the world, reflect His glory to and upon His creation, doing so
according to His intentions, plans, and purposes. That, it could be said,
is the essence of the life of faith.

Saturday, August 10, 2013

The questions here posed are legitimate. The same
questions existed shortly after Jesus’ day, as His apostles were carrying the
message of His paradoxical all-conquering victory via death and Resurrection
into the world. To wit, in the second letter of Peter, one is able to
read questioning words like “Where is His promised return? For ever since
our ancestors died, all things have continued as they were from the beginning
of creation” (2 Peter 3:4).

In the face of the message that Jesus had conquered death,
hearers in that day were no less able than “astute observers” today (who always
think that they are the first to notice that there is evil all around them), to
take in their surroundings and see violence, death, and inexplicable
destruction, and say “Nothing much has changed. Things pretty much look
the same way that they have always looked.” It’s a legitimate
observation, so how is the question to be answered?

Naturally, this is a difficult
issue that has plagued all that have ever posited a God of love and a
victorious Messiah. As they fought to take possession of that which they believed
had been promised to them, Israel would have been tempted to pose the same type
of statement and its implied question to their God. They could easily cast
a collective gaze upwards and say, “Lord, You promised this land to our
ancestors and to us. You brought us out of Egypt. You directed us
to cross the Jordan and to re-claim that which you said is ours. Why
don’t these people know this? You brought plagues on Egypt, parted the
Red Sea, destroyed the Egyptian army, and gave us food and water in the
wilderness, so why not just drive these people from the land with the obvious
mighty power of your outstretched arm? Would that not be easier?
Would that not be a greater demonstration of your power than us having to carry
out these campaigns?”

One could even imagine the covenant people attempting to
employ some reverse psychology on the Creator God by saying, “Seriously, Lord,
if you just drive them out, then you will get all the glory. If we have
to do battle against these people and these rulers, then we might get some of
the glory too. We don’t want that. You don’t really want that, do
you?”

How might the God of Israel be
disposed to respond to such thinking?
After all (and putting aside the potential ploy at reverse psychology),
based on the reported experience of Israel in their journey out of and from
Egypt, these are legitimate points. Returning then to the eleventh
chapter of Joshua so as to pick up where this study left off, and in response
to the concerns of the covenant people of the Creator God, it is said that “the
Lord determined to make them obstinate so they would attack Israel. He
wanted Israel to annihilate them without mercy, as He had instructed Moses”
(11:20).

Without getting sidetracked by the thought that this, in
isolation, paints the picture of something less than a loving God, one finds
that though the land had been given to Israel, and though the people of the
land had been handed over to Israel, the Creator God wanted His people to
annihilate them (though some could certainly see such reports as after-the-fact
justification). Regardless, the narrative suggests that Israel’s God did
in fact desire that His people have a hand in the battle.

Indeed, Scripture seems to suggest that the Creator God
wanted to work through His people and empower His people to come alongside Him
and work with Him to deal with and overcome that which despoiled, defaced, and
decimated their land of promise---that first part of the creation that was to
be redeemed through the care and stewardship of His covenant people. In
the end then, Israel should have been compelled to point to their God, and the
power of their promise-making God, as the means by which they emerged
victorious.

Friday, August 9, 2013

That corruption of human nature creates an internal conflict
against being fully human (as the Creator God intended for the divine
image-bearers), and thus causing a falling short of the glory of God. Of
course, that conflict is inward but expresses itself outward, and shows itself
through human interaction with this world and with other divine image-bearers.

It would appear that Scripture is insistent that victory in
this conflict, in which the original intention for the human being wins out, is
somehow made through the operation of the Spirit of God through the very power
of the Gospel, as like that which was experienced by Joshua and Israel as they
attempted to subdue the promised land, none of the corrupted parts of human
nature want to make peace via submission to Jesus and His claim to Lordship.

As it stands, just as Adam and Eve are reported to have been
successfully tempted with the idea that they could be like “divine beings,” human,
and understandably because they are made as the image of their Creator, seem to
have a desire to rule and worship themselves.
However, all must be conquered. The analogy that is here being
drawn thus raises a question, especially in light of the Gospel declaration
that Jesus is Lord.

On the surface, it is then easy to understand the need for
Israel to enter the land and conquer. Or is it? Israel had promises. Joshua had
promises. After the death of Moses, the God of Israel is said to have spoken
to Joshua and said, “No one will be able to resist you all the days of your
life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not abandon you
or leave you alone” (1:5). Joshua was promised that none would be able to
resist, but as can be seen, that didn’t stop many from attempting.

The Creator God continued His words to Joshua, saying “Be
strong and brave! You must lead these people in the conquest of the land
that I solemnly promised their ancestors I would hand over to them” (1:6). So
here Israel has the promise that their God would “hand over” the land to
them, but as one traverses the book of Joshua, and if the obvious supernatural
intervention is stripped from the tale, the story that is left does not seem
like much of a handover.

Quite to the contrary, the handover of the promised land is
presented as a near-constant battle. As has already been noted, nobody was
making peace with Israel (except one by stealth means, and it was a very
tentative “peace”), and the covenant people were required to carry out a
lengthy campaign in the land. This stand against Israel was the case even
in the face of what seemed to be well-known (at least as far as is communicated
within the narrative itself), as Rahab, the famous harlot from Jericho, who
must have had “contact” with a diverse group of people from the whole of what
was the promised land, is shown to speak with a knowledge of the covenant God
of Israel as she says “I know the Lord is handing this land over to you.
We are absolutely terrified of you, and all who live in the land are cringing
before you” (2:9).

So in looking at this situation with Israel, with their
promises and with the supposed existence of the terror of Israel of which Rahab
speaks, one is then forced to consider a thought: “If Jesus’ kingdom has been
established, and He is reigning at this very moment, then why does it continue
to be necessary to fight? Why must there be a battle? Why does
death continue?”